6 ms·

> What we have now is just a new hype-cycle, with new apps, new technologies and a new mix of features You contradict yourself. Is it "just a new hype-cycle,"

> What we have now is just a new hype-cycle, with new apps, new technologies and a new mix of features You contradict yourself. Is it "just a new hype-cycle," or is it "new apps, new technologies, and a new mix of features?" If it's the latter... isn't that substantively different than what we had before? Outliners have quite the fandom, but my issue with the traditional outliner is that they often trap data in outline form. Sure, most good outliners offer export options. Unfortunately, the second you've taken data from your outliner and exported it, you now have two versions of your data, and you've lost. Logseq (and Obsidian) have changed this. Finally, a single document _is_ an outline, a backlink, a data source, a webpage, a presentation, and so on... The only thing the user has to do is work with that single page of information. It's more than hype for me.

slightwinder 4y ago
> You contradict yourself. Is it "just a new hype-cycle," or is it "new apps, new technologies, and a new mix of features?" The concepts are old and have a new hype. The apps are new. But generally, it doesn't matter much for the user whether you have some old-school desktop-app with gtk or Qt, or a "modern" electron app, or some webapp on your own server or some service in the cloud. At the end it's all the same ideas and concepts in different colors and flavors. > If it's the latter... isn't that substantively different than what we had before? That entirely depends on who is "we". We which are all users? Or we the old users? Or we the young users? Or we the new users? I'm not saying that there is not development or change, just that this is nothing new, or even a new development. This has going for a long time, it just reached a new cycle and and a new generation of users. > Outliners have quite the fandom, but my issue with the traditional outliner is that they often trap data in outline form. Sure, most good outliners offer export options. Unfortunately, the second you've taken data from your outliner and exported it, you now have two versions of your data, and you've lost. This is a fundamental problem of every app and space. But interoperability does exist here and there, it's not just exports. > Logseq (and Obsidian) have changed this. Not really? They only established a common foundation for interoperability. Which is also what other apps are doing to some degree. But you still have limitations by everything which is not covered by this foundation. For example, can Logseq handle dataview-syntax? Or generally any obsidian-plugin has it's own special syntax? What about other markdown-editors? How much do they support the special syntax used by obsidian or it's plugins? True, the markdown-space has now a healthy movement toward interoperability and gains many nice functionalities. But it's not like this is especially new. And all those features also existed before Markdown in some app, in some way or another. Nothing is really new here. What's happening is that a new platform is growing, collection nice stuff from the collective pool of abilities, and a new consolidation is happening. This happens all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it dies. Funny enough, the WWW was one of the first and most successful of this movements. And markdown grew from this as a simplification, to now grew into the same space where WWW started and obsidian now moves toward too, just in a different flavor. This whole "new" movement is just replicating where others were already before in different cloths. > Finally, a single document _is_ an outline, a backlink, a data source, a webpage, a presentation, and so on... So has Org-mode 10 years ago, XML 20 Years ago. HTML 30 years ago. More or less, the numbers may be a bit off. > It's more than hype for me. Good for you. I'm not question that. Just saying this generation is not the first one having that.
- TuringTest 4y ago
  I'm afraid you're entirely missing the relevance of the core fact that the syntax and runtime execution of programming languages are humongously difficult to understand for the large majority of computer users. Every time you create a system to automate some part of computer usage that doesn't rely on complex syntax and which executes in a declarative way, the same end result is created through a new concept, even if there existed a different process before that could also create it. HTML was a step in the right direction (and XML a misstep); before it, you needed to program a GUI API to lay out content intermixed with interactive components. Saying that the web brought nothing new because BBSs existed before it is missing out on the importance of the details in achieving that result. Precisely, "different cloths" is what makes the movement relevant to make it accessible to new users who could never have used the previous system. You're right in pointing out that interoperability is a key factor in the new batch of tools. The key point that neither Org-mode nor SGML-derived codes had is is to make user-entered content accessible to transformation tools without the need to code the transformation in an imperative language. Spreadsheets had this feature as well, sure, but spreadsheets didn't easily allow for hierarchical content. The main new aspect that logseq and Obsidian bring to the table is the possibility to backlink to any part of the hierarchical structure. The tools automatically compile all those links as a new data object, which the user can process without creating a script to gather all that data. HTML had the potential to popularize that feature 30 years ago (with a slightly more awkward syntax than Markdown), but browsers never got around to it. Previous tools would require users to move content to a different tool (say, by copy-pasting the content of your files to a spreadsheet to apply formulas), destroying the possibility of having a central personal knowledge repository. In logseq / Obsidian, you can keep adding multimedia content to your structured knowledge base, and exploit that content without coding at all, or at most by creating simple declarative expressions. What tool before these ones had that possibility before? With hierarchical structures, not just flat structures like the spreadsheet?
  - slightwinder 4y ago
    > I'm afraid you're entirely missing the relevance of the core fact that the syntax and runtime execution of programming languages are humongously difficult to understand for the large majority of computer users. No, I know that, I just don't think it's a relevant problem for the user group we are talking about. > Saying that the web brought nothing new because BBSs existed before I did not say that? And in the first place, BBS competes with other networks like the Internet, not a service running in such a network. > The main new aspect that logseq and Obsidian bring to the table is the possibility to backlink to any part of the hierarchical structure. No, they do not. Linking is a fundamental concept of hypertext. And easy linking inside your dataspace, as also automatically listing backlinks, was already established with wikis 20+ years ago. Even hierarchies exists in wiki space for a long time now in several different ways. > The tools automatically compile all those links as a new data object, which the user can process without creating a script to gather all that data. What kind of low-level-tools have you used till now that this is your level of knowledge here?? > In logseq / Obsidian, you can keep adding multimedia content to your structured knowledge base, and exploit that content without coding at all Yes, because someone else does the coding, as always. This is the benefit of a popular ecosystem. But this is not the point of having a scriptable and programmable app. The scripting just enable you to personalize on small levels. The programmability should enable the user and community to extend the program with new abilities, as dataview here is doing it. There are other extensions who enable scripting to certain degrees for the user, as obsidian is not really adding this on it's own. No app will ever be perfect for everyone. That's why extensions and scripting are beneficial, especially for this space.k > What tool before these ones had that possibility before? With hierarchical structures, not just flat structures like the spreadsheet? The constraints again. Why does it matter that obsidian&co. can do some more tricks than their ancestors, like playing videos, when the fundamental purpose and handling is still the same? That's like the old joke of taking something old and just add a clock, to sell it as new. More bells and whistle don't make a new church.

slightwinder 4y ago

> You contradict yourself. Is it "just a new hype-cycle," or is it "new apps, new technologies, and a new mix of features?" The concepts are old and have a new hype. The apps are new. But generally, it doesn't matter much for the user whether you have some old-school desktop-app with gtk or Qt, or a "modern" electron app, or some webapp on your own server or some service in the cloud. At the end it's all the same ideas and concepts in different colors and flavors. > If it's the latter... isn't that substantively different than what we had before? That entirely depends on who is "we". We which are all users? Or we the old users? Or we the young users? Or we the new users? I'm not saying that there is not development or change, just that this is nothing new, or even a new development. This has going for a long time, it just reached a new cycle and and a new generation of users. > Outliners have quite the fandom, but my issue with the traditional outliner is that they often trap data in outline form. Sure, most good outliners offer export options. Unfortunately, the second you've taken data from your outliner and exported it, you now have two versions of your data, and you've lost. This is a fundamental problem of every app and space. But interoperability does exist here and there, it's not just exports. > Logseq (and Obsidian) have changed this. Not really? They only established a common foundation for interoperability. Which is also what other apps are doing to some degree. But you still have limitations by everything which is not covered by this foundation. For example, can Logseq handle dataview-syntax? Or generally any obsidian-plugin has it's own special syntax? What about other markdown-editors? How much do they support the special syntax used by obsidian or it's plugins? True, the markdown-space has now a healthy movement toward interoperability and gains many nice functionalities. But it's not like this is especially new. And all those features also existed before Markdown in some app, in some way or another. Nothing is really new here. What's happening is that a new platform is growing, collection nice stuff from the collective pool of abilities, and a new consolidation is happening. This happens all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it dies. Funny enough, the WWW was one of the first and most successful of this movements. And markdown grew from this as a simplification, to now grew into the same space where WWW started and obsidian now moves toward too, just in a different flavor. This whole "new" movement is just replicating where others were already before in different cloths. > Finally, a single document _is_ an outline, a backlink, a data source, a webpage, a presentation, and so on... So has Org-mode 10 years ago, XML 20 Years ago. HTML 30 years ago. More or less, the numbers may be a bit off. > It's more than hype for me. Good for you. I'm not question that. Just saying this generation is not the first one having that.

TuringTest 4y ago
I'm afraid you're entirely missing the relevance of the core fact that the syntax and runtime execution of programming languages are humongously difficult to understand for the large majority of computer users. Every time you create a system to automate some part of computer usage that doesn't rely on complex syntax and which executes in a declarative way, the same end result is created through a new concept, even if there existed a different process before that could also create it. HTML was a step in the right direction (and XML a misstep); before it, you needed to program a GUI API to lay out content intermixed with interactive components. Saying that the web brought nothing new because BBSs existed before it is missing out on the importance of the details in achieving that result. Precisely, "different cloths" is what makes the movement relevant to make it accessible to new users who could never have used the previous system. You're right in pointing out that interoperability is a key factor in the new batch of tools. The key point that neither Org-mode nor SGML-derived codes had is is to make user-entered content accessible to transformation tools without the need to code the transformation in an imperative language. Spreadsheets had this feature as well, sure, but spreadsheets didn't easily allow for hierarchical content. The main new aspect that logseq and Obsidian bring to the table is the possibility to backlink to any part of the hierarchical structure. The tools automatically compile all those links as a new data object, which the user can process without creating a script to gather all that data. HTML had the potential to popularize that feature 30 years ago (with a slightly more awkward syntax than Markdown), but browsers never got around to it. Previous tools would require users to move content to a different tool (say, by copy-pasting the content of your files to a spreadsheet to apply formulas), destroying the possibility of having a central personal knowledge repository. In logseq / Obsidian, you can keep adding multimedia content to your structured knowledge base, and exploit that content without coding at all, or at most by creating simple declarative expressions. What tool before these ones had that possibility before? With hierarchical structures, not just flat structures like the spreadsheet?
- slightwinder 4y ago
  > I'm afraid you're entirely missing the relevance of the core fact that the syntax and runtime execution of programming languages are humongously difficult to understand for the large majority of computer users. No, I know that, I just don't think it's a relevant problem for the user group we are talking about. > Saying that the web brought nothing new because BBSs existed before I did not say that? And in the first place, BBS competes with other networks like the Internet, not a service running in such a network. > The main new aspect that logseq and Obsidian bring to the table is the possibility to backlink to any part of the hierarchical structure. No, they do not. Linking is a fundamental concept of hypertext. And easy linking inside your dataspace, as also automatically listing backlinks, was already established with wikis 20+ years ago. Even hierarchies exists in wiki space for a long time now in several different ways. > The tools automatically compile all those links as a new data object, which the user can process without creating a script to gather all that data. What kind of low-level-tools have you used till now that this is your level of knowledge here?? > In logseq / Obsidian, you can keep adding multimedia content to your structured knowledge base, and exploit that content without coding at all Yes, because someone else does the coding, as always. This is the benefit of a popular ecosystem. But this is not the point of having a scriptable and programmable app. The scripting just enable you to personalize on small levels. The programmability should enable the user and community to extend the program with new abilities, as dataview here is doing it. There are other extensions who enable scripting to certain degrees for the user, as obsidian is not really adding this on it's own. No app will ever be perfect for everyone. That's why extensions and scripting are beneficial, especially for this space.k > What tool before these ones had that possibility before? With hierarchical structures, not just flat structures like the spreadsheet? The constraints again. Why does it matter that obsidian&co. can do some more tricks than their ancestors, like playing videos, when the fundamental purpose and handling is still the same? That's like the old joke of taking something old and just add a clock, to sell it as new. More bells and whistle don't make a new church.